Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
1 day ago.
by NasCarNut
BeRight
#1

CLEAN... ENERGY

Offshore wind farms from New Jersey to Virginia took a big step closer to reality with the completion of a review that showed the renewable energy source would not cause major environmental damage, officials said today. Wind projects off the coasts of Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and New Jersey are being studied. The Mid-Atlantic lease proposal follows the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts that was given the go-ahead in 2010 after 9 years of federal review."No developer should have to wait nine or 10 years," for approval, Salazar said. The response from the developers was "DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"

 
 

Member Comments

Stillhere

;)

Posted 54 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Ah but if all you say is true (highly unlikely) then when these obsolete coal fired power plants had the opportunity to upgrade while using pollution credits , why didnt they ?

Posted 54 days ago.

Stillhere

Slipped up didnt ya

Posted 54 days ago.

Stillhere

but these are now common in the sunny southwest. Whether we like it or not, change is coming.

But harry you claimed to be local lolololl how would you know about the sunny southwest?

Posted 54 days ago.

Stillhere

Coal can be burned responsibly until a viable option becomes economicaly feasible but this govt wishes to force an issue before its time has come and in doing so destroy our position in the world

Posted 54 days ago.

Stillhere

Make no mistake beright what folks like harry are advocating is a tax on co2. So2. Mercury etc are totally different as to boiler Mact requirements. These things can be dealt with and should be, carbon is the building block of all life on this planet and co2 is an essential trace gas that keeps it green. Powder river basin coal, (i assume thats what you meant) is not a viable option for eastern power plants due to transport costs mostly

Posted 54 days ago.

BeRight

It was not too many years ago that PRB coal was the answer to pollution when the EPA target was SO2 since in relative terms it burns cleaner. One of its drawbacks is that it contains less BTU's than some of the other coals and you need more of it to maintain the same BTU's for the boiler.

Even though PRB is good stuff as far as coal it still give off CO2.

Oh well................

Posted 54 days ago.

Ohwiseone

And Harry thats the thing most republicans cant stand is change ! Its evil you know?

Posted 54 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Oh bewrite ! Did you ever stop and consider that just maybe you are a moron !(your words )

Posted 54 days ago.

harryanderson

Coal has declined in the US for several reasons, especially Central Appalachian steam coal, including:

environmental regulations, as you've said

aging infrastructure

depleted cost-effective resources (in Central Appalachia)

competition from the natural gas boom

increased use of clean energy

Is this good? Not if you're a miner from Cadiz.

As little as five years ago, I wouldn't have dreamed of new housing tracts with pre-installed solar on each roof, but these are now common in the sunny southwest. Whether we like it or not, change is coming.

Posted 54 days ago.

BeRight

BTW Harry, it is nice to have a discussion compared to "I'm OWO from the internet. I'm the guy who always says ridiculous angry stuff. I misinterpret every comment you make as an absurd absolute and then I attack it like you are a moron. "

Posted 54 days ago.

BeRight

Then AEP plants in Beverly were closed. The newest unit was very serviceable. Its main problem is that it was to expensive to retrofit with equipment to meet newer EPA guidelines.

The EPA has fulfilled the Presidents promise to make companying go bankrupt if they try to build a new coal plant.

The first bar was SO2. Next Bar was Mercury. Finally, it is CO2. Can't fossil without giving off CO2.

Promise kept.

Posted 54 days ago.

harryanderson

When Duke Energy closed Cape Fear back in 2012, its website said, “The utility will close the Cape Fear power plant, near Moncure, N.C., and the H.B. Robinson Unit 1 power plant, near Hartsville, S.C., as part of its ongoing fleet-modernization program.”

htt ps://ww w.duke-energy.co m/news/releases/2012092801.asp

“Fleet modernization” is another term for replacing that ’58 Ford.

Posted 54 days ago.

harryanderson

BeRight,

As an American, I’ve always been proud that we’re willing to take the lead in solving problems, and not let other countries’ non-American fatalism deter us.

And the Cape Fear closing you referenced seems based more on its obsolescence than “based on a political promise made by the president,” since, as you admitted, “Two of the site's six coal-fired units were retired in 1977.”

Duke Energy must have concluded in 1977 that these units should be retired.

“Retired” is what happens at the end of a career.

Posted 54 days ago.

BeRight

maybe my post was miss understood. As we continue to close coal plants based on a political promise made by the president, the rest of the world continues to burn the coal we do not.

I keep hearing the term "global climate change but I guess the global boundaries stop at our borders?

Where's the outrage?

Posted 54 days ago.

harryanderson

BeRight,

Decommissioning 1950’s technology is a no-brainer.

Imagine relying on a 1958 Ford for your daily commute—drum brakes prone to fading when hot or wet and locking up in emergencies. Vacuum-motor windshield wipers that slowed or stopped when you tromped on the gas. A big old inefficient generator that sucked enough horsepower to pull down a 352 cubic inch engine. A carburetor and a mechanical distributor, each of which required frequent tinkering. Soft cast-iron valve seats that required leaded gas for lubrication. 15.6 mpg. And on and on.

To re-engineer such a dinosaur up to our modern standards would probably cost as much as a new Ferrari. Duke Energy apparently realized this back in way back in 1977 when they mothballed 1/3 of the Cape Fear plant.

Posted 54 days ago.

BeRight

Duke Energy’s contractor imploded Cape Fear's two coal-fired units — which began operating in 1956 and 1958 — on June 4. Two of the site's six coal-fired units were retired in 1977 and two in 2011. The remaining two coal-fired units, along with one of four oil-fired combustion turbine units on site, were retired in October 2012. The smokestacks and emission-control equipment were imploded in 2014. The remaining infrastructure will be mechanically removed in the coming months.

On the other hand, Two leading Indian power firms will build several coal fired plants in Bangladesh to produce up to 4,600 megawatts of electricity to ease the country's prolonged power crisis, a senior official said on Saturday. Already announced, Adani Power will set up two, coal-fired plants with a total capacity of 1,600 MW that will cost more than $1.5 billion.

Posted 54 days ago.

harryanderson

I respectfully decline the suggestion I stop breathing.

Posted 54 days ago.

harryanderson

BeRight,

Glad to hear you're "doing everything possible to responsibly curb our carbon footprint."

Posted 54 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Maybe its because some of you are MORONS ! (your words)

Posted 56 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or